Hexin Holdings Ltd v. Partnerships Unincorp Associations

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Hexin Holding Limited (Hong Kong)
  • Defendant: FUQIANMU and the Individual and/or Entity Operating FUQIANMU (Foreign)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: YK Law LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-04387, N.D. Ill., 04/22/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is asserted based on the Defendant being a foreign entity or individual engaged in infringing activities within the district, including offering to sell, selling, and importing products into the United States.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's e-commerce sales of women's shapewear infringe a U.S. design patent for a shaped support belt.
• Technical Context: The dispute is in the direct-to-consumer women's shapewear market, where ornamental design and brand recognition are significant commercial drivers.
• Key Procedural History: The filing is an Amended Complaint. The Plaintiff notes that it has "patented over 126 different works related to its shapewear business," but this case specifically asserts a single design patent.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2021-03-04	U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333 Priority Date
2021-10-19	U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333 Issued
2026-04-22	Amended Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333 - "Shaped support belt"

Patent Identification: U.S. Design Patent No. D933,333, "Shaped support belt," issued October 19, 2021.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: As a design patent, the '333 Patent does not describe a technical problem or functional solution. It protects the novel, non-obvious ornamental appearance of an article of manufacture.
• The Patented Solution: The patent claims "the ornamental design for a shaped support belt, as shown and described" '333 Patent, claim The design, depicted across eleven figures, consists of a wide, hourglass-shaped main body with a prominent, vertically-oriented rectangular front strap that overlays the center of the main body '333 Patent, Fig. 1 '333 Patent, Fig. 2 The patent explicitly notes that the broken lines in the drawings depict stitching which forms part of the claimed design, indicating that the specific seam and paneling patterns are integral to the protected aesthetic '333 Patent, description
• Technical Importance: The complaint alleges that the "Hexin Design" is commercially significant, has achieved consumer recognition through marketing and promotional efforts, and is exclusively associated with the Plaintiff's products '333 Patent, description Compl. ¶8 Compl. ¶9

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts the single claim of the '333 Patent.
• The ornamental design is defined by its visual elements as a whole, including:
  • The overall hourglass-like silhouette of the belt.
  • The presence and proportions of a vertically-oriented rectangular strap overlaying the front.
  • The specific arrangement of panels and stitching, which are claimed as part of the design.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The complaint identifies the accused products as "Infringing Products" sold by Defendant under the seller alias "FUQIANMU" through e-commerce stores Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶12 An "Amended Schedule A" provides a URL to a specific product listing on the Shein marketplace described as a "Waist-Trainer" Compl. p. 9

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are women's shapewear garments, sold directly to consumers in the United States via online platforms Compl. ¶1 Compl. ¶13
• The complaint alleges that the Defendant is a "sophisticated seller" who operates under various aliases to conceal its identity and offers the infringing products at "below-market prices," thereby causing price erosion and unfair competition Compl. ¶14 Compl. ¶11 The Defendant is alleged to be part of a network of infringers who use tactics to evade detection and enforcement Compl. ¶23

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not contain a claim chart or a detailed, element-by-element comparison of the accused product to the patented design. Instead, it makes a general allegation that the Defendant is "making, using, selling, offering for sale, and importing" products that "embody or practice Hexin Design" without authorization Compl. ¶1 Compl. Prayer ¶1(a) The infringement allegation rests on the assertion that the overall visual appearance of the products sold by the Defendant is substantially the same as the design claimed in the '333 Patent.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • The Ordinary Observer Test: The central issue will be whether "in the eye of an ordinary observer," the accused product is substantially the same as the patented design. The court will visually compare the product identified in Schedule A with the drawings in the '333 Patent.
  • Scope Question: The URL in Schedule A describes the accused product as having a "Leopard-Print" pattern Compl. p. 9 The '333 Patent drawings show no surface ornamentation. This raises the question of whether the addition of a surface pattern on the accused product is sufficient to alter its overall visual impression in the eye of an ordinary observer, so as to avoid infringement of the claimed shape and configuration.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

As this case involves a design patent, there are no traditional claim terms requiring construction in the manner of a utility patent. The scope of the single claim is defined by the patent's drawings as a whole. The analysis will not focus on the definition of textual terms but on a comparison of the overall ornamental appearance of the accused product with the patented design depicted in the figures of the '333 Patent.

VI. Other Allegations

Willful Infringement

The complaint seeks treble damages pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, which requires a finding of willful or egregious infringement Compl. Prayer ¶4 The factual basis for this claim appears to rest on allegations that the Defendant is a "sophisticated seller" Compl. ¶14; that on "information and belief," Defendant is "aware of Hexin Products" and that its actions are likely to cause injury Compl. ¶16; and that Defendant uses tactics to "conceal its identity and the full scope of its operation" Compl. ¶18 Compl. ¶22

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• Visual Similarity: The primary question for the court is one of visual comparison: is the overall ornamental appearance of the Defendant's "Waist-Trainer" product substantially the same as the design shown in the '333 patent from the perspective of an ordinary consumer of such goods?
• Impact of Surface Ornamentation: A key legal question will be whether the "Leopard-Print" surface pattern alleged to be on the accused product is a legally significant distinction. The court must determine if this pattern creates a different overall visual impression, or if the underlying shape and configuration, claimed in the '333 patent, are so similar that the pattern is insufficient to avoid a finding of infringement.
• Establishing Willfulness: A central evidentiary challenge for the Plaintiff will be to move beyond "information and belief" allegations and prove that the pseudonymous Defendant acted with knowledge of the patent or engaged in conduct so egregious as to warrant enhanced damages, particularly given the alleged use of concealment tactics.